All Forum Comments
Comment by MrCynical posted on Can or will a canon or Nikon lens fit pentax?? at 25/07/2010 - 14:07
Maybe the threat of being sent to the Tower will deter some of the image-stealing bot operators on Flickr?
Comment by MrCynical posted on Queen opens Flickr account at 25/07/2010 - 14:03
johnwhit wrote:
Well the wishlist just got shorter, bought a DA 15mm Ltd on Ebay for £340, boxed mint.
How in the name of all that's holy did you manage that? Well the wishlist just got shorter, bought a DA 15mm Ltd on Ebay for £340, boxed mint.
Comment by MrCynical posted on LBA again.............. at 24/07/2010 - 15:53
Not sure I'd be comfortable using one of these, given that it's only over one shoulder. From using a shoulder bag for a few years (side-effect of having a metric ton of books to cart around) I know how easily such things can fall off even with a grippy shoulder pad!
Comment by MrCynical posted on Pap Strap, R-strap at 24/07/2010 - 15:50
kiwao wrote:
From what I have read on the internet the sensor is as good as the sensor in the k10 so shouldn't the raw image quality be the same? Has anybody else had a problem with image softness on with this camera.???
Try taking test shots on a tripod, using mirror lockup. It might just be possible (and I'm clutching at straws here, because as people say above the Kx should at least equal the K10) that your technique hasn't adjusted to the much lighter body yet? That would explain why you notice the problem more on the FA77, since with the much narrower depth of field any camera movement issues would be much more visible.From what I have read on the internet the sensor is as good as the sensor in the k10 so shouldn't the raw image quality be the same? Has anybody else had a problem with image softness on with this camera.???
Comment by MrCynical posted on kx images soft? at 24/07/2010 - 15:43
geclinke wrote:
Seems like my only option shorter than I have now is a 16-45mm - is this going to be noticeably better quality than my 18-55mm kit?
One thing to bear in mind is that the 16-45's main weakness is very noticeable purple fringing. I don't know if PF is as likely taking photos underwater as it is when taking photos OF water (water droplets being the traditional test subject), but if it is then probably not the lens to go for!Seems like my only option shorter than I have now is a 16-45mm - is this going to be noticeably better quality than my 18-55mm kit?
Comment by MrCynical posted on Short lens with 72mm filter at 24/07/2010 - 15:36
flossie wrote:
p.s.
I own my own domains, so every forum or company I register with gets a unique email address (e.g. GrammerPedantsForum@...). Its quite handy, both for seeing who is sending you junk mail, and when a forum you no longer use gets hacked (old phpBB forums mostly) and its database stolen for spam, you can just block anything that comes to that address entirely.
I thought I was the only one sad enough to do that p.s.
I own my own domains, so every forum or company I register with gets a unique email address (e.g. GrammerPedantsForum@...). Its quite handy, both for seeing who is sending you junk mail, and when a forum you no longer use gets hacked (old phpBB forums mostly) and its database stolen for spam, you can just block anything that comes to that address entirely.
As regards the Other Forum, I personally finding reading the Pro Digital forum on DPReview to be far more entertaining - the level of sheer hate that gets casually batted around is astonishing!
Comment by MrCynical posted on Mirrorless Lens Forums: Registration issues at 23/07/2010 - 14:43
flossie wrote:
Yes I know my spelling is dreadful, but I'm picky over grammar... I've now set myself up for someone spotting me doing a grocer's apostrophe, haven't I
Rather the cardinal sin of failing to end a sentence with a full stop. Yes I know my spelling is dreadful, but I'm picky over grammar... I've now set myself up for someone spotting me doing a grocer's apostrophe, haven't I
Comment by MrCynical posted on Publication of magazine to cease, and new website at 22/07/2010 - 19:04
Mannesty wrote:
If you want only to use top notch glass, and if you don't need the speed ( 1:2.8 ) of the DA* 50-135mm, the DA* 60-250mm 1:4 should be on your shopping list. Add to that the DA* 55mm to cover the gap between the long end of the 16-50mm and the short end of the 60-250mm and you have an excellent starting point, but it won't end there . . .
The DA* 200mm 1:2.8 is an excellent lens but I feel the extra length of the 300mm, albeit slower at 1:4, makes it more useful, especially if you acquire a 60-250mm.
Then of course there is the FA Limited range of superb optics, just in case Pentax ever produce a FF body.
That little lot should drain your bank balance somewhat.
I'm not sure that "buy all of Pentax's pro lenses" is really going to be specific enough for the OP If you want only to use top notch glass, and if you don't need the speed ( 1:2.8 ) of the DA* 50-135mm, the DA* 60-250mm 1:4 should be on your shopping list. Add to that the DA* 55mm to cover the gap between the long end of the 16-50mm and the short end of the 60-250mm and you have an excellent starting point, but it won't end there . . .
The DA* 200mm 1:2.8 is an excellent lens but I feel the extra length of the 300mm, albeit slower at 1:4, makes it more useful, especially if you acquire a 60-250mm.
Then of course there is the FA Limited range of superb optics, just in case Pentax ever produce a FF body.
That little lot should drain your bank balance somewhat.
Comment by MrCynical posted on and after 16-50? at 21/07/2010 - 20:39
Dangermouse wrote:
I'm not sure I really want a Pentax toilet? I know they make medical imaging gear!
As opposed to the Canon version where you'd have to upgrade your rear end every few years in order to fit on it...
But then if you went on holiday and didn't use it for a month, the flush motor would break down I'm not sure I really want a Pentax toilet? I know they make medical imaging gear!
As opposed to the Canon version where you'd have to upgrade your rear end every few years in order to fit on it...
The thing you could do is buy a Canon camera and use an adapter to use Pentax lenses that would work.
Back on topic, Canon L lenses tend to hold their value better than just about anything else. Be sure to post an LBA thread telling us what you get with the proceeds